the last time his totem fell was before his dream in the basement of the chemist. When he awoke he splashed water on his face and saw his wife in a window.
Inception
- Thread starter Barnabas
- Start date
the last time his totem fell was before his dream in the basement of the chemist. When he awoke he splashed water on his face and saw his wife in a window.
My friend immediately replied: "It fell." when I asked her this XD I think she was hopeful it was real.
I could be very literal and say that it would have fallen eventually, after the camera stopped filming - but that's no fun!
I don't think it fell, because it was spinning much longer than the time when it did fall.
To get into the debate about if it's the best film ever... I don't think it is, because it would have made a better book (more character development, more emotional investment etc.). I think that for a film to be the very best it's got to be best as a film (...
). I'm not sure what that would classify as (because of my terrible memory), but I'm sure there's something out there.I have to say, I don't know if I could choose between Inception and Scott Pilgrim VS The World, just because they're so different - it's impossible to compare them, really.
I liked it alot! Seen it twice! Also like Scott Pilgrim etc etc too and seen that twice! I wouldn't compare the two of them though, ones a serious/philosophical film and the other's an indie romcom with alot of gaming/music refs in it. I prefered the general story of Inception but I prefered the way Scott Pilgrim etc etc was done (so athetically - I cant spell - pleasing!)
Best film of the decade? 
ound:
Are you serious? Well then son, you haven't seen many films!
First of all, there isn't a lot to inception. Thematically, yeah okay, it's about entering people's dreams and the film lightly poses the issue about losing touch with reality. If we could live in our dreams and if we could create our own paradise? Then we'd face the possible implication of other's finding a way of getting inside those dreams! Okay, nice little political/espionage tone. The action scenes are nice but they squat uneasily amongst the rest of the films narrative. Honestly, I would've just preferred a well thought out, cerebral drama about how dreams fit into our lives and how the abstract and surreal is key component to human's will to be implicitly creative and expressive. And how the possiblity of being able to enter one's dream could have a widespread effect on... well.. everything!
...At least that wouldn't have cost hundreds of millions of dollars anyway...
Ellen Paige plays whiny little know it all to Leo Dicaprio's... wait.. where have I...? Oh yes, the EXACT same character from Shutter Island! I think actors are signing contracts in package deals now...
Inception is a good example of a film that looks intelligent but actually doesn't have a lot to it. It's an excuse for stupid people to feel clever. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
ound: Are you serious? Well then son, you haven't seen many films!
First of all, there isn't a lot to inception. Thematically, yeah okay, it's about entering people's dreams and the film lightly poses the issue about losing touch with reality. If we could live in our dreams and if we could create our own paradise? Then we'd face the possible implication of other's finding a way of getting inside those dreams! Okay, nice little political/espionage tone. The action scenes are nice but they squat uneasily amongst the rest of the films narrative. Honestly, I would've just preferred a well thought out, cerebral drama about how dreams fit into our lives and how the abstract and surreal is key component to human's will to be implicitly creative and expressive. And how the possiblity of being able to enter one's dream could have a widespread effect on... well.. everything!
...At least that wouldn't have cost hundreds of millions of dollars anyway...
Ellen Paige plays whiny little know it all to Leo Dicaprio's... wait.. where have I...? Oh yes, the EXACT same character from Shutter Island! I think actors are signing contracts in package deals now...
Inception is a good example of a film that looks intelligent but actually doesn't have a lot to it. It's an excuse for stupid people to feel clever. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Me and my friend agreed that DiCaprio only plays characters who are on the run and troubled. Titanic, Catch Me if you Can, etc.
Best film of the decade?
Are you serious? Well then son, you haven't seen many films!
First of all, there isn't a lot to inception. Thematically, yeah okay, it's about entering people's dreams and the film lightly poses the issue about losing touch with reality. If we could live in our dreams and if we could create our own paradise? Then we'd face the possible implication of other's finding a way of getting inside those dreams! Okay, nice little political/espionage tone. The action scenes are nice but they squat uneasily amongst the rest of the films narrative. Honestly, I would've just preferred a well thought out, cerebral drama about how dreams fit into our lives and how the abstract and surreal is key component to human's will to be implicitly creative and expressive. And how the possiblity of being able to enter one's dream could have a widespread effect on... well.. everything!
...At least that wouldn't have cost hundreds of millions of dollars anyway...
Ellen Paige plays whiny little know it all to Leo Dicaprio's... wait.. where have I...? Oh yes, the EXACT same character from Shutter Island! I think actors are signing contracts in package deals now...
Inception is a good example of a film that looks intelligent but actually doesn't have a lot to it. It's an excuse for stupid people to feel clever. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
were we watching the same movie? If so watch it again.
take time to dissect the philosophy of Inception and look over the details of the film.
As for the actors, this has more to do with preference. I prefer actors who are good for their roles, if I want a bald bamf I go find Vin Diesel, an eccentric hero i look for Nick Cage, detached savior: Keanu Reeves, ect... and so on.
I do applaud actors who can play a multitude of roles well, but the guys who due their roles without par deserve applause to.
Moving on to Paige is a necessary foil for Cobb, if not for her then he would not have faced up to his past and his regret.
As for the top at the end, I believe that it did not fall. It seems that the cellar of chemist scene needs to be better inspected.
Inception is a good film, even a great film. Best of the year? Mmgh, well, maybe: It's hard to say quite yet, and I haven't seen everything that has come out so far. Best ever? No, not even of the decade, far from it. I mean, I don't even think it's Nolan's best: I liked Memento better.
So, it was a good movie with some genuinely intelligent content to it. But it wasn't developed well enough, the philosophical edge, and the movie suffered from wanting to be a hollywood action-flick. Quite self-consciously, mind you, so much so that interpreting all of it as an allegory for film making isn't out of the question. Nevertheless, boring action is boring action wheter the writers know it or not. And the action could have been great, had the physics of the dreamworld been utilized more.
Technically it was top-notch, structurally quite clever. And I did enjoy the postmodern ontology of the world presented. But nihilism (or rather, solipsism) as a philosophical dilemma is so very old and worn out, it has been done a million times in a million places and a lot better than here. Did you have a genuine epiphany watching Inception, a realization that the world we perceive may not be real? Neither did I. The movie, while discussing philosophy, had nothing original to offer. It was rather like philosophy 101, very interesting, even profound, as long as you have lived in isolation of all modern thought.
Granted, it was intellectually stimulating, in the same way that making a jigsaw-puzzle is. It required a refreshingly intense amount of concentration to sit through the movie, and to grasp the structure, underestand what was going on, and for that I commend Nolan (though by now it is to be expected of him). Still, I think Memento did this better.
And the ending, oh, the ending, the praised ending. Am I the only person who saw this movie and felt that the ending, rahter than being excessively innovative, clever and deep, was extremely predictable and cheap: of course it was going to have an open ending. And I don't even think that was really an open ending: he was obviously still asleep. The dreamlike quality of the whole returning-to-home part, oversaturated camera, his children were exactly the same age as in his memories, playing at the exact same place as in his memories etc. The interesting thing here is: which world then, was the "real world", if there was one. I don't think there was (And ofcourse there wasn't: it's a movie and it knows it: it is Nolan's dream, it's our collective dream, he can't wake up because even if he did he'd still be within a dream of a sort). The world, right from the beginning, acted like a dream, moreso than most of the dreams they went into: when have you been chased through an alley by thugs, an alley that's progressively becoming narrower untill you can barely fit through it? Why were the dream-machines never explained? Because dreams don't need explanations. The architect's name is Ariadne, really? That's a likely coincidence in the waking world. No, it isn't, but in a psychoanalysts dream, certainly, what else could the therapist be called?
To summarize: it was a good movie. It appears deeper than it is, but if you try, you will find something of interest in it. If I were to review it, I would give it a score of 8.5/10, which is distinguishably above average.
So, it was a good movie with some genuinely intelligent content to it. But it wasn't developed well enough, the philosophical edge, and the movie suffered from wanting to be a hollywood action-flick. Quite self-consciously, mind you, so much so that interpreting all of it as an allegory for film making isn't out of the question. Nevertheless, boring action is boring action wheter the writers know it or not. And the action could have been great, had the physics of the dreamworld been utilized more.
Technically it was top-notch, structurally quite clever. And I did enjoy the postmodern ontology of the world presented. But nihilism (or rather, solipsism) as a philosophical dilemma is so very old and worn out, it has been done a million times in a million places and a lot better than here. Did you have a genuine epiphany watching Inception, a realization that the world we perceive may not be real? Neither did I. The movie, while discussing philosophy, had nothing original to offer. It was rather like philosophy 101, very interesting, even profound, as long as you have lived in isolation of all modern thought.
Granted, it was intellectually stimulating, in the same way that making a jigsaw-puzzle is. It required a refreshingly intense amount of concentration to sit through the movie, and to grasp the structure, underestand what was going on, and for that I commend Nolan (though by now it is to be expected of him). Still, I think Memento did this better.
And the ending, oh, the ending, the praised ending. Am I the only person who saw this movie and felt that the ending, rahter than being excessively innovative, clever and deep, was extremely predictable and cheap: of course it was going to have an open ending. And I don't even think that was really an open ending: he was obviously still asleep. The dreamlike quality of the whole returning-to-home part, oversaturated camera, his children were exactly the same age as in his memories, playing at the exact same place as in his memories etc. The interesting thing here is: which world then, was the "real world", if there was one. I don't think there was (And ofcourse there wasn't: it's a movie and it knows it: it is Nolan's dream, it's our collective dream, he can't wake up because even if he did he'd still be within a dream of a sort). The world, right from the beginning, acted like a dream, moreso than most of the dreams they went into: when have you been chased through an alley by thugs, an alley that's progressively becoming narrower untill you can barely fit through it? Why were the dream-machines never explained? Because dreams don't need explanations. The architect's name is Ariadne, really? That's a likely coincidence in the waking world. No, it isn't, but in a psychoanalysts dream, certainly, what else could the therapist be called?
To summarize: it was a good movie. It appears deeper than it is, but if you try, you will find something of interest in it. If I were to review it, I would give it a score of 8.5/10, which is distinguishably above average.
Last edited:
I liked it, especially the complexity of the plot. But I do have a complaint.
They gave an explanation for Fischer
They gave an explanation for Fischer
I watched it twice.
Yeah already did that.
Um yeah, me too?
So... you just listed Nic cage, Keanu reeves and vin diesel- three of the most uninspiring, untalented actors in hollywood as part of your argument for the justification of use of the actors in Inception?
Yes, I understand that she is there for a reason. That's why we have characters in films, so they interact. She just not a very good character, that's what I'm saying.
Refreshingly intense? If you're referring to the frequent, "which fucking dream are they in again!?" moments, then yeah okay. Not sure how "refreshing" that is though.
T
The Jester
I think Orion won this argument.
I enjoyed Inception, but I wouldn't exactly call it lifechanging.
Avatar on the other hand... (Just trolling guys ;D)
I enjoyed Inception, but I wouldn't exactly call it lifechanging.
Avatar on the other hand... (Just trolling guys ;D)
you watched a movie you disliked twice?
not sure I believe that
then we have an agreement
congratulations, this is one of the best straw men I've ever seen.
bold is based on what?
so in recap, you dislike this movie because you don't like the actors and can't/don't want to follow the story.
Last edited:
T
The Jester
Why are you assuming that he didn't get the idea behind it?
He just said that the idea looked complex, but isn't really.
I think Orion is intelligent enough to get the general concept behind such a movie.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are you assuming that he didn't get the idea behind it?
He just said that the idea looked complex, but isn't really.
Barnie, disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean the person is having personal problems
I think Orion is intelligent enough to get the general concept behind such a movie.
it isn't the general concept of the movie that makes it good
Thought it was good the first time. Then people like you started saying it was the holy grail- besides, my girlfriend wanted to see it.
Yes, we do.
I think I already covered that in my previous post.
Yes Barnabas, that's exactly what I'm saying! Congratulations.